I thought they may of kept the present Berry flavour and called it original Berry just for @David 
I will carry on weighing mine as I like to get 500 calories out of a drink
1 Like
What if the new one is worse? Berry didn’t happen by accident. It was designed and tested. At least one person at Huel is an evil genius attempting to create the most toxic substance in the universe. You think they’re satisfied with v2.3?
6 Likes
This kinda links to another thread where people are asking yet again to be able to sample the flavours.
As all the flavours are going to change, now would be a really good time to introduce this.
Just think - Berry v3 might be amazing but poor old @David will never find out because he is so traumatised by the memory of v2.3…
7 Likes
We want powder samples @Julian or where going to ballot for strike action! 
2 Likes
We could just buy a bag between us and pass it round.
5 Likes
A Huel party!!
We need another one of those for sure 
3 Likes
Its mostly that high on 2 bags
Buy more bags and less frequent and it will be cheaper
I like all the changes aside from the inclusion of tapioca flour instead of some of the oats. Tapioca flour are empty calories and don’t have the fibre that oats have. I wish we knew how much tapioca flour was getting put in. For us ‘Hueligans’ who are already accustomed to the texture, we don’t need this change and it really hurts the nutritional value of huel.
I would also like to know what other benefits the kombucha powder brings, they haven’t really sold it here as I’m sure there is more in it than just some b vitamins.
4 Likes
I also would prefer more oats over tapioca flour.
I find it gives the RTDs a strange underlying flavour too.
The texture of v2.3 is absolutely fine. I use a mixer ball and it’s perfect.
I’d rather have the nutritional value of the oats than the possibly improved texture with flour.
I may of course eat my words if I try v3 and think it’s awesome
6 Likes
For 2 bags, I pay 10 euros more than someone in the UK pays, for 20 bags I would pay 100 euros more…
Huel was already expensive compared to most EU competitors because of the price being about 13% higher for Europeans compared to the Brits. Now the situation is even worse.
Also, I hope Huel won’t become too smooth. I stopped buying from a competitor because they changed their formula and the result was so “smooth” that it was like drinking water.
1 Like
This new version does seem rather a step backwards from the current formulation, with reductions in both fibre and protein content. I’d also miss the texture if it became smooth like Jimmy Joy, of which I am not a big fan.
But the biggest concern is definitely the inclusion of kelp. This seems a completely unnecessary change and rather an odd decision. Why introduce potential allergens and compromise the vegan nature of the product?
Clearly there is a significant chance of impacting animal life by the mere necessity of having to state “may contain crustaceans, fish, molluscs”. This is not something I feel comfortable with given that the same iodine previously has been provided from synthetic sources which did not adversely affect animals.
Think I will stock up on v2.3 and investigate alternatives again, and hope there is a rethink…
5 Likes
Overall it doesn’t do anything to the nutritional value. What also needs to be taken into account is we’ve sourced better ingredients with an improved nutritional composition. Unfortunately we can’t tell you the inclusion amount as that’s part of the recipe.
Nope, it just contributes to the B vitamins that are present in Huel.
This wasn’t a consideration because it really only affects a small proportion of customers and I mean really small. However, it may help.
The protein and fibre content is pretty much the same. There may be minor differences due to the sourcing of ingredients and rounding but that’s about it.
The vegan nature hasn’t been compromised at all, we are just being cautious. They are part of the 14 major allergens that the UK and EU adhere to and we want to make our labelling as transparent as possible.
2 Likes
The UK’s Food Standards Agency (FSA) states
"precautionary allergen labelling should only be used after a thorough risk assessment. It should only be used if the risk of allergen cross-contamination is real and cannot be removed."
So “may contain fish” has to be on the label because there’s a genuine risk that Huel might actually contain fish. I don’t get how Huel v3 is still vegan?
What’s to stop someone labelling beef lasagna as vegan and then putting ‘may contain meat’ on the back?
2 Likes
Well it has, because you’ve introduced a new potential source of animal products where there wasn’t one before. Veganism is about reducing exploitation of animals wherever possible, not potentially increasing it for no reason.
4 Likes
I notice also that the new v3.1 bars still use potassium iodide, so that adds to the mystery as to why kelp has been added to the powder.
I would also like to echo my concerns about this justification of things being ‘natural’. As others have said, this does rather seem like an appeal to people who buy into pseudoscience. I’ve seen one comment on one of the natural ingredients (acerola cherries) in this discussion, but not the others, and there’s nothing in the original post about why ‘natural’ is better.
Maybe you have a good reason, but I’m not seeing it. What it looks like is compromising the price and substance of your product for sake of marketing. Most worryingly, it makes me hugely doubt your scientific validity, which as others have said, is the entire point. If you can’t explain what your reasoning behind, and understanding of, ‘natural’ ingredients is, I am 100% going to be cancelling, and it will be much more because of the lack of trust than of the rise in price.
5 Likes
Because it’s a different product with different processing and requirements so some ingredients are different to meet these needs… Hence why there is grape juice in the bars but not in the powder.
Acreola cherries also bring phytonutrients. There is reason that the individual micronutrient is better whether it is synthetic or natural but it’s about what else can the ingredient provide.
Not at all and I want to make this super clear. The change in versions and some of the ingredients as NOT resulted in the price increase. There are so many other factors involved as mentioned in the article Julian linked to at the top of this thread. It just makes things a bit easier to bring these changes all in to together rather than have them separate. I appreciate that can cause a bit of confusion in the first week or so of the announcement though.
1 Like
But potassium iodide is already in the v2.3 powder, so that isn’t a reason to remove it. If it’s “good enough” for the bars, it’s surely still good enough for the powder.
Will there be absolutely no alcohol from the kombucha? In terms of “minimal caffeine” from the kombucha, are you able to provide more info on how much “minimal” is please? Just thinking about pregnancy/breastfeeding angle, and wondered if it would no longer be suitable.
1 Like
You can’t remove the risk because kelp is in the ocean alongside the contaminants mentioned. Think of it like the oats, which have a warning for gluten in the standard Huel. If we could grow and process the oats in a mollusc-free environment i.e. not in the open ocean then the statement wouldn’t be there.
Yeah I get what you’re saying. The decision was that a move to more whole ingredients was favourable. Kelp seems to be more controversial than we first thought. We could simply have not put the statement on the label, probably would have got away with it and we probably wouldn’t be getting all this stick.
As mentioned though we want to be cautious and keep the openness that Huel has grown on.
Completely for pregnancy/breastfeeding.
We are just waiting to confirm it from test results, when we have them we will let you know.
1 Like